Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1/10/2007

Ex Parte Hood

Citations

211 S.W.3d 767
2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 14
2007 WL 57789

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that \ Penry I stood as a Supreme Court decision from which an applicant could 'reasonably formulate' the contention that he was entitled to jury consideration of any type of mitigating evidence.\
outlining Robertson 's procedural history and indicating that Robertson raised his claim on direct and appeal and his initial habeas application
outlining Robertson's procedural history and indicating that Robertson raised his claim on direct and appeal and his initial habeas application
outlining Robertson’s procedural history and indicating that Robertson raised his claim on direct and appeal and his initial habeas application
outlining Robertson 's procedural history and indicating that Robertson raised his claim on direct and appeal and his initial habeas application
‘‘a change in the law under the exhaustion doctrine . . . must come from a binding authority, i.e. cases from [a state’s high court] and the United States Supreme Court’’ (internal quota- tion marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keller, Meyers, Price, Keasler, Hervey, Cochran, Womack, Johnson, Holcomb

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Ex Parte Hood

8 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.